Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Since I said I would abandon Vinyl's thread...

Originally Posted by PotVsKtl

1. There are no past tense addicts. Someone who had truly been an addict in the past would not be looking for a one time smack deal for kicks.
2. Yes, you're responsible. Yes, you know what you're doing. But it's not entirely your choice and it's not a decision you would make without the influence of desperate need.
3. These are words. They aren't tough, they're symbols.

1. There are different kinds of addicts, believe it or not, just as there are different kinds of people. A very small percentage even manage to pull off being chippers, and only dip in every once in a while and can then back away. Are all alcoholics equally as self-destructive in their habit? No. The three years I was using I still maintained a professional job without arousing suspicion and practically never went to the blocks to cop--I left that up to the various other fiends I knew because I still maintained enough self-preservational instincts to not want to get arrested. Since moving to Cali I've dipped back in about a dozen times and never really wanted to extend it much further because, frankly, addiction is too fucking tiring and too expensive.

2. Who are you to dictate what could be my only influence for making any decision? You're pushing your knowledge of heroin addicts (which admittedly is an accurate representation in about 90 percent of the fiends I've known) on to me. You assume too much, and you assume it in an entirely personal fashion, which is generally a mistake as it is here.

3. Symbols can't be tough? What about the word-symbol "tough" itself? Alright, let me rephrase--you get awfully fucking personal and judgmental over meaningless bullshit. You actually jump at the opportuntiy to attack my character flaws, seemingly just because I post about drugs. What the fuck is your beef exactly? I would love to hear what it is in YOU that makes me such a big fucking peeve.

Point out any factual inaccuracies in anything I've posted on the subject matter and I'll gladly accept the criticism, but it's absurd that you feel such a dire need to assail what I have to say just because you think I'm doing it to look cool or whatever. But the vast majority of what I've had to say about it all is hardly trying to look cool, from where I'm sitting at least. I've done at least as much to detail the negative realities of drugs as the positive. So what the fuck?

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

pot's right about the definition of addiction. It doesn't matter what anecdotal evidence you've got. You're talking about the strict definition. It doesn't matter if you're addicted to alcohol, nicotine, heroin, or even chocolate or sex.

Once you're an addict you will be one forever, even if you learn to overcome it. If you can casually drift in and out of heroin use then you are not an addict.
It's possible your brain is more resistant to the effects of extended heroin use than others'. It happens. Some people are hard wired to be alcoholics from birth. It happens.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

I agree with you about the accepted definition of addiction as the governing science has determined it over the past few years, but I also personally think that some of it is bullshit. The "disease" concept in particular. And to say that there's one absolute definition of addiction period is falling into the general pitfall of absolutes--they don't fucking exist.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Originally Posted by thelastgreatman

I agree with you about the accepted definition of addiction as the governing science has determined it over the past few years, but I also personally think that some of it is bullshit. The "disease" concept in particular. And to say that there's one absolute definition of addiction period is falling into the general pitfall of absolutes--they don't fucking exist.

so Webster's Dictionary is just a big book of vague guidelines for you?
This is English we're all speaking. It has rules. You seem to be talking about something else, some level of pseudo-addiction. That's fine. Different thing. Addiction is real, there is a valid clinical definition of it. Nicotine and alcohol addictions aren't just vague abstractions which can be defeated simply be refusing to believe they are real. They have to be managed like a disease. The can alter your brain chemistry. I can't speak to any experience of heroin addiction, but I'd imagine that for some people it's the same.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

1. Jack took care of this.
2. That was the universal "you." Not you. More accurately, it was a response to your own representation of absolutes in the nature of choice and responsibility as it relates to addiction.
3. It's personal.

And I'm done. You seem intelligent, just get off the drug schtick. If you've got nothing else to contribute to this board then move on. If you continue to represent yourself as a b-grade Burroughs I will continue to be a dick. Deal? Hugs.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

so Webster's Dictionary is just a big book of vague guidelines for you?
This is English we're all speaking. It has rules. You seem to be talking about something else, some level of pseudo-addiction. That's fine. Different thing. Addiction is real, there is a valid clinical definition of it. Nicotine and alcohol addictions aren't just vague abstractions which can be defeated simply be refusing to believe they are real. They have to be managed like a disease. The can alter your brain chemistry. I can't speak to any experience of heroin addiction, but I'd imagine that for some people it's the same.

You're talking about serious nuances of a definition of a medical condition, and nuances that aren't even total certainties within the medical community. So what happens when someone is a cigarette smoker for 10 years and quits, and stays quit for 20 years. They remain an addict even though they no longer hold any attachment to that chemical? Well that definition is pretty fucked up. Suppose they have one cigarette after those 20 years and still don't return to the habit. Were they addicts again while smoking that one cigarette? Do they remain addicted for a certain period afterwards? Or do they just never qualify as addicts to begin with?

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Originally Posted by thelastgreatman

You're talking about serious nuances of a definition of a medical condition, and nuances that aren't even total certainties within the medical community. So what happens when someone is a cigarette smoker for 10 years and quits, and stays quit for 20 years. They remain an addict even though they no longer hold any attachment to that chemical? Well that definition is pretty fucked up. Suppose they have one cigarette after those 20 years and still don't return to the habit. Were they addicts again while smoking that one cigarette? Do they remain addicted for a certain period afterwards? Or do they just never qualify as addicts to begin with?

Now I see where you're lost. Someone can smoke for 10 years and not be an addict. Another person can smoke for 2 years and develop a severe addiction. The first person's brain chemistry was not affected by the nicotine. The second person's was. People handle chemicals differently. Even a gambling is a brain chemistry issue, except in that case it's your body's own chemicals that it's addicted too.

Cigarettes are something I have direct experience with. I am a nicotine addict. I haven't had a cigarette since 7/4/2001 11:00pm, but I know that if I allow myself to have another it will get out of control. At the moment I believe I can avoid it, but I'm not stupid enough to tempt fate. Simply typing this post is making me fiend for a fucking cigarette in a very fucking real way, but over the years I've learned to cope with the pain of nicotine detachment. My brain will always be desperate for nicotine, but just like with any pain, you can eventually tune it out.

If you can shoot heroin and tomorrow just get up and say "eh whatever" then you are not an addict and you do not understand addiction.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

Now I see where you're lost. Someone can smoke for 10 years and not be an addict. Another person can smoke for 2 years and develop a severe addiction. The first person's brain chemistry was not affected by the nicotine. The second person's was. People handle chemicals differently. Even a gambling is a brain chemistry issue, except in that case it's your body's own chemicals that it's addicted too.

Cigarettes are something I have direct experience with. I am a nicotine addict. I haven't had a cigarette since 7/4/2001 11:00pm, but I know that if I allow myself to have another it will get out of control. At the moment I believe I can avoid it, but I'm not stupid enough to tempt fate. Simply typing this post is making me fiend for a fucking cigarette in a very fucking real way, but over the years I've learned to cope with the pain of nicotine detachment. My brain will always be desperate for nicotine, but just like with any pain, you can eventually tune it out.

If you can shoot heroin and tomorrow just get up and say "eh whatever" then you are not an addict and you do not understand addiction.

Bullshit--you have to acknowledge varying levels of addiction. NOTHING in life is just either you are or you aren't. Addictions can be broken. They can be broken repeatedly. If you inundate your brain with an addictive chemical twenty times a day for years you develop an addiction whether or not you have an addictive personality/brain chemistry. Your body becomes dependent on that chemical. You will experience withdrawl.

Some people are more geared towards stronger addictive personalities/chemistries than others, but the line at which it stops becoming a lack of control and starts becoming an uncontrollable genetic tendency is impossible to discern. Addictions can be controlled, otherwise you never would have been able to quit smoking in the first place. The fact that you know enough not to tempt fate by having another cigarette shows that you have maintained control over the addiction by knowing that you're not capable of being able to pick up and put back down--that is the aspect of control that repeat addicts lack, and that is where it really becomes an issue of self-control.

Addicts that know they're going to become addicted again if they do it even though they've already overcome the chemical dependency are just giving in to their mental urge, and that is self-control plain and simple. I don't give a fuck how genetically prone to addiction you are, if you can get off you can stay off, it is entirely up to you.

Also, I never shot heroin. Another instance of being able to exercise judgment and control even in the middle of an addiction that had come to define my life.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Originally Posted by thelastgreatman

Bullshit--you have to acknowledge varying levels of addiction. NOTHING in life is just either you are or you aren't. Addictions can be broken. They can be broken repeatedly. If you inundate your brain with an addictive chemical twenty times a day for years you develop an addiction whether or not you have an addictive personality/brain chemistry. Your body becomes dependent on that chemical. You will experience withdrawl.

Some people are more geared towards stronger addictive personalities/chemistries than others, but the line at which it stops becoming a lack of control and starts becoming an uncontrollable genetic tendency is impossible to discern. Addictions can be controlled, otherwise you never would have been able to quit smoking in the first place. The fact that you know enough not to tempt fate by having another cigarette shows that you have maintained control over the addiction by knowing that you're not capable of being able to pick up and put back down--that is the aspect of control that repeat addicts lack, and that is where it really becomes an issue of self-control.

Addicts that know they're going to become addicted again if they do it even though they've already overcome the chemical dependency are just giving in to their mental urge, and that is self-control plain and simple. I don't give a fuck how genetically prone to addiction you are, if you can get off you can stay off, it is entirely up to you.

Also, I never shot heroin. Another instance of being able to exercise judgment and control even in the middle of an addiction that had come to define my life.

dude, you're confusing the definition of addiction with it's application to a particular potential addict. Definitions are definitions. It's even beginning to sound as though you sort of understand what addiction is, except your confusing someone with the sensibility to understand and deal with their addiction with someone who is not an addict.

I've seen people close to me destroyed or almost destroyed by alcohol. Chemical addiction is a very real thing. What you're implying is a strong personality vs a weak personality is based on real things happening in the brain. My ex-girlfriend's father was one of the smartest, most strong-willed people I've ever known, but he had a history of alcoholism in his family. He was successful in every aspect of life, but could not defeat a simple chemical compound. He stayed dry for his family years but couldn't deal with the pain and eventually chose to end his life rather than take another drink. It ruined his daughter's life and now she's addicted to pain killers and has been in and out of an institution for years.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

Originally Posted by jackstraw94086

dude, you're confusing the definition of addiction with it's application to a particular potential addict. Definitions are definitions. It's even beginning to sound as though you sort of understand what addiction is, except your confusing someone with the sensibility to understand and deal with their addiction with someone who is not an addict.

I've seen people close to me destroyed or almost destroyed by alcohol. Chemical addiction is a very real thing. What you're implying is a strong personality vs a weak personality is based on real things happening in the brain. My ex-girlfriend's father was one of the smartest, most strong-willed people I've ever known, but he had a history of alcoholism in his family. He was successful in every aspect of life, but could not defeat a simple chemical compound. He stayed dry for his family years but couldn't deal with the pain and eventually chose to end his life rather than take another drink. It ruined his daughter's life and now she's addicted to pain killers and has been in and out of an institution for years.

I'm not going to concede your theory that they lacked self-control.

You're confusing what is merely ONE of the definitions of addiction with the billions of different and varied actual instances of addiction, which is why I keep trying to get through that you cannot apply that single definition to all addictions. This would seem to be obvious to a logical person, which I know you to mostly be.

My own father was the smartest, most strong-willed person I've ever known, and he either could not overcome or simply never chose to overcome his own alcoholism, which killed him. Just because one fails to be strong-willed (or simply does not choose to cease their addiction) in one instance does not completely eradicate whatever instances of willpower they might have.

In your example, you say the man actually did manage to beat his addiction for his family years, but then had to take his own life rather than hit the sauce again. This, to me, is actually an instance of control over his addiction, although I'd say that the reason he had to kill himself rather than become a drunk again was more the depression he suffered that made drinking such a powerful urge for him than the addiction itself. he didn't succumb to the addiction, he succumbed to suicide.

I am in no way denying chemical addiction, or genetic tendencies towards addiction, or any of the governing science, except to say it IS POSSIBLE to overcome addiction through willpower. Once clean, one faces the choice of returning to the actual act of addiction (as opposed to the genetic/chemcial predisposition of addiction that is still with them) every day. One day at a time, and all that rot. There IS choice at play. The problem is that returning to addiction is very very tempting, and sometimes the choice factor decides it would rather be an addict again than continue not. Depression and inability to cope with reality are huge factors in this, and are the real root cause of addictive personalities/genetic tendencies/chemical makeups. Happy people generally aren't too prone to addiction.

You cannot say that it is entirely nature and no willpower. You demonstrate willpower in your refusal to take up smoking again. I do the same with heroin. Millions of people do it.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

I never said it's not possible to deal with addiction. I just take issue with your assertion that it's not like a disease. Earlier you implied that someone who used to smoke but goes years without one is not an addict. I disagree. An addict will always be one. Some addicts come to terms and some don't.

Herein lies our issue--if said addict quits, they are no longer devoting or surrendering themselves habitually or obsessively to their addiction, are they?

I understand where you're coming from with the current clinical "definition" of addiction. I put that in quotes for a reason--it is still technically theory at this stage. A lot of it is rooted in fuzzy sciences like psychology, combined with the still very complicated and not-at-all definitive study of how the brain truly functions, as well as our just now burgeoning understanding of genetics.

I disagree with the term "disease" specifically because (a) you cannot perform any kind of imperical (or as close as any medical test can be claimed to be imperical) test for addiction. The tests are anecdotal and behavioral. Fuzzy science. (b) because I maintain that once successfully quit you no longer fit the definition of being addicted to said substance, although I don't debate that you may retain the addictive tendency/chemical makeup/genetic predisposition for like. (c) because you can't call it a disease if it can be cured by locking someone in a room.

Herein lies our issue--if said addict quits, they are no longer devoting or surrendering themselves habitually or obsessively to their addiction, are they?

I understand where you're coming from with the current clinical "definition" of addiction. I put that in quotes for a reason--it is still technically theory at this stage. A lot of it is rooted in fuzzy sciences like psychology, combined with the still very complicated and not-at-all definitive study of how the brain truly functions, as well as our just now burgeoning understanding of genetics.

I disagree with the term "disease" specifically because (a) you cannot perform any kind of imperical (or as close as any medical test can be claimed to be imperical) test for addiction. The tests are anecdotal and behavioral. Fuzzy science. (b) because I maintain that once successfully quit you no longer fit the definition of being addicted to said substance, although I don't debate that you may retain the addictive tendency/chemical makeup/genetic predisposition for like. (c) because you can't call it a disease if it can be cured by locking someone in a room.

just because you lock someone in a room doesn't mean he's cured of addiction. His brain has just adjusted to the withdrawl symptoms.
His receptors are still out there hungry for chemical. They're just not as loud as they once were.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

All withdrawls do terminate at a point though. Eventually, all the chemical dependency bleeds out and what you're left with is the mental addiction, which is actually the hardest part to beat anyway. Getting through withdrawl sucks righteously, but it's manageable. It's dealing with life sober that breaks people. Not your brain's thirst for the chemical, your mind's thirst.

Re: Thread for Me And Pot To Go Va-Tech On Each Other

withdrawl never fully ends IMO. It fades in and out of the background.
If I didn't live in California I'm not sure I could be a non-smoker.

The basis of our disagreement is that you distringuish a "brain's thrist" with a "mind's thirst".

This is a bit extreme, but your emotions at their most basic level are really just chemical reactions. Every emotion you've ever had was your brain's direct or indirect reaction to a chemical stimulus.